AbyssalMage wrote:The one that is making the news ATM, is the class action lawsuite against Walmart and sex discrimination. Im not sure if they are seeking Punitive Damages (I assume they are), but this is a case going through Federal Court because of the money ($$$) involved not because anyone will be going to jail (at least not yet).

Tudamorf wrote:
There is no good answer for that, which is why California and many other states have adopted laws forcing punitive damages to be redirected to the State instead of being given as a windfall to lawyers and random stupid people.

That's no different than Texas (or many other states) who cap Punitive Damages to protect buisnesses and individuals so they can continue to exploit workers and clients

The fact that the state redirects your Punitive Damages in California (thought you said they reversed this/let it expire) is just priceless. The state lets you incurr some kind of gross mistreatment, doesn't prosecute the company/individual (most likely), lets you spend your money (You pay the lawyers if you win remember), time (court cases take months/years), and energy and then simply comes in and takes a share through taxes and then takes what ever remains because there are people like you who think they don't deserve it. PRICELESS!

Punitive damages are above compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are repayment of the harm.

What logic is there is awarding an extra amount to the plaintiffs after they have already been repaid for what they lost?

Punitive damages are a poor motivator for corporations from doing bad things, anyway. They are a very good motivator for the trial lawyer industry though. You could easily motivate corporations if you just made the decision makers(of whatever bad stuff there is) criminally liable. We don't have that system, even thought is makes sense and is fair, because there is no money in it.

Let us say an organization, say PGE owns a small lake with a small dam to generate electricity. These are common in California. The number of EBMUD lakes are too numerous to count. But lets say that it's PGE. And some manager or executive thinks its a good idea to dump PCBs or something else toxic in the lake. My system would have the real victims compensated for their damages. And then you throw everyone from the executive on down to the truck driver in jail, criminally liable. Those responsible are punished. Those victimized are paid.

With the present system, the executive gets fired. The company gets sued, losing compensatory damages and punitive damages. Both of which the lawyers suck out 30-40%. And the shareholders and customers pay for the loss. They had nothing to do with the decision, but they are the ones punished. All you are doing is redistributing money to people who did not earn it. The victims did not earn any punitive damages, their lawyers certainly did not. But they are paid, and the consumer is punished.

And because ultimately the corporation just passed the damages on, they were not really punished themselves, they just raise rates to cover it. Much less motivation to prevent this from happening in the future. An executive or truck driver who realizes that he or she be personally accountable for his or her criminal corporate crimes will think many many many times over before committing those crimes. Their punishment now is much less severe, they get fired(to get another job elsewhere). Motivation is much less under the present system.

Systamatically keeping womens wages lower than mens and promoting men over women because of gender is ILLIGAL (i.e. criminal). Thats what I think they did that was malicious. But what I think doesn't matter, its what can be proven in court.

Men are, by nature, more likely than women to get promotions and higher pay.

But the question the lawsuit is asking is why? If they (men) are getting promoted and make more money because they are the best qualified, then a buisness (including Walmart) has nothing to worry about. If the reason a person gets promoted is because of the genetalia between their legs (or lack of) then you are breaking the law. The law is very clear on this. Men (or women) can't be promoted just by "nature."

Wal-Mart is doing us a big favor already by employing the people it does.

I can honestly say that they are not doing us a favor by simply, "Employing the people it does". I lived in a city that the bigest private employer was Walmart. Ill have to humbly disagree with you and this statement.

Class action lawsuits are the epitome of lawyer money-grabbing, and they do it because there's no penalty not to, except for a little wasted time.

***Disclaimer***
Just wanted to add this again. I Know Walmart isn't the only company who practices sexual discrimination. The US Government posts figures ever year on men/women wages and the gap that exists at every level. Walmart IMHO is just the first of many companies who will be facing lawsuits if the Class Action Lawsuite is succesful.

What logic is there is awarding an extra amount to the plaintiffs after they have already been repaid for what they lost?

To discourage the practice from happening again.

Punitive damages are a poor motivator for corporations from doing bad things, anyway. They are a very good motivator for the trial lawyer industry though. You could easily motivate corporations if you just made the decision makers(of whatever bad stuff there is) criminally liable. We don't have that system, even thought is makes sense and is fair, because there is no money in it.

The reason coporations and individuals wont always be held Criminally Liable in America has been discussed, even if we both agree that they should be. There is a reason corporations and individuals have law teams to defend them. They are definately scared of Punitive Damage but in the modern buisness world, Punitive Damage is covered by the cosumer like you stated (below), not the buisness.

Let us say an organization, say PGE owns a small lake with a small dam to generate electricity. These are common in California. The number of EBMUD lakes are too numerous to count. But lets say that it's PGE. And some manager or executive thinks its a good idea to dump PCBs or something else toxic in the lake. My system would have the real victims compensated for their damages. And then you throw everyone from the executive on down to the truck driver in jail, criminally liable. Those responsible are punished. Those victimized are paid.

This isn't always possible in the American Legal system. Its easy to say everyone should go to jail and we have laws on the books to help prosecuters do just that, but CEO's don't (usually) have public defenders and therfore DO NOT (usually) goto jail. But everyone else does. Look at ENRON, all the mid-level magagers (and lower) went to jail for 5+ years but the ones who should of gone to jail, haven't spent a day behind bars.

With the present system, the executive gets fired. The company gets sued, losing compensatory damages and punitive damages. Both of which the lawyers suck out 30-40%. And the shareholders and customers pay for the loss. They had nothing to do with the decision, but they are the ones punished. All you are doing is redistributing money to people who did not earn it. The victims did not earn any punitive damages, their lawyers certainly did not. But they are paid, and the consumer is punished.

Executives rarely get fired, even after a big judgement is levied against them. Lawyers usually take closer to 70%, but 30-40% would be nice Shareholders and customers shouldn't pay for the loss, that is how the buisnesses model is run though. The point of monetary damages is to punish the buisness, but as long as the legal system doesn't punish the buisness for passing the cost off to consumers, then buisness will continue making the consumer pay. And as long as insurance companies pay off repeat offenders, buisness's have no motivation to correct their actions.

And because ultimately the corporation just passed the damages on, they were not really punished themselves, they just raise rates to cover it. Much less motivation to prevent this from happening in the future. An executive or truck driver who realizes that he or she be personally accountable for his or her criminal corporate crimes will think many many many times over before committing those crimes. Their punishment now is much less severe, they get fired(to get another job elsewhere). Motivation is much less under the present system.

I agree with you
Too bad governments don't have the political willpower/resources to compete against the law teams of big buisness.

Licensing is voluntary.
If you don't want to get a license, then don't get one.
There is no force involved.

While they do protect the license holders from free competition, they also effectively protect the consumer from fraud.
Fraud is theft.
If you think that Libertarians believe that theft should be free to commit, then you don't understand Libertarianism.

MBAs should have to pass a board exam, be licensed, in order to practice executive duties in a corporation.
A sole prop needs a license in order to conduct business, to run a company. Why shouldn't an executive?

We have had punitive damages for decades, in vastly humongous amounts.

Do you really say that it prevents bad behavior?
I think you're wrong if you do. Just look at what happened with the mortgage and financial system meltdown.

All of those executives, of all of those companies, are free to continue to ply their trade(except Madoff perhaps).

And there is nothing preventing them from doing it again. There just is not a personal incentive.
If it is bad enough to be punished(hence punitive damages), it should be a crime. And the criminals should go to jail.
There is no money in that though. So it won't happen.

But I am sure, it would change the behavior.
There is NOTHING in punitive damages to corporations to prevent it from happening again, as you say. The corporations just pass the cost of liability, lawsuits, lawyers, and losses to the consumer and shareholder. The corporation is merely a money distribution organization at that point.

Fyyr wrote:
Too bad governments don't have the political willpower/resources to compete against the law teams of big buisness.

You have to remember that law firms ARE big business.
Trial law firms especially.

It is a huge industry.
And they will try to protect their profits just like any other business will try to.

The issue is that law firms don't really produce a product for society.
They are in the business of moving money from other people they sue, into their balance books.

If corporate crimes were really crimes, and those who do them criminals, they should go to prison.
Sure corporations should pay for their victims losses, if they are real. Medical expenses, lost income, etc.

But why does an individual plaintiff(even if a group), be responsible for personally punishing other people.
Be allowed to, even. Especially when it has been shown that that punishment does not change behavior. Punishment should be a reserved right and responsibility for government. If a person did something to harm you, and you went over and "punished" him for it, you would go to jail. If your neighbor came over to your home, and poured Roundup on your grass. And you went over to punish him yourself for doing that, YOU would go to jail. It is not YOUR job to punish him.

McDonald still serves hot coffee now. They have a label on the cup, "HOT COFFEE", that they have to print on the cup for retards.
The behavior did not change. Stella Leibeck was a retard, she got rich, her lawyers got rich. The only change was the labeling of the cup, and the cost of coffee went up.
McDonald's doesn't care, they just pass the cost to the consumer.

You pay, you are punished. Not McDonalds under the present system.

And greasy lawyers get fat and wealthy off of your money, for producing NOTHING.

Fyyr wrote:Licensing is voluntary.
If you don't want to get a license, then don't get one.
There is no force involved.

But you can't practice many trades until you get the license. Plenty of force there.

Or are you admitting that government meddling in consumer affairs is a necessary exception to the lone man in the desert scenario, because the government is better than the consumer at protecting the consumer from fraud?